World Economic Forum says Capitalism needs to be reformed

World Economic Forum says Capitalism needs to be reformed. washingtonpost.com/world/europe/growing-gap-between-rich-and-poor-seen-as-key-economic-risk/2017/01/11/7e290a78-d7e3-11e6-a0e6-d502d6751bc8_story.html?utm_term=.166dd16d5947

Other urls found in this thread:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1372220.stm
mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/keynes.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Wtf does any of this have to do with populism and Trump? Is not the widening gap the fault of crony capitalism and the globalist faggots? The fuck is this shit

>World Economic Forum
pol is not talking about this wtf

The WEF also desperately push the automation meme because everyone sees the damage outsourcing has done. Free trade, which is the WEF's core tenet, is on life support and they will bitch endlessly once it does finally die. This will become more apparent once the current tech bubble pops.

Of course it's their fault, but they will never admit that. So they will blame everything else from populists to robots.

you don't have health insurance lol

>capitalism
>reformed

Undialectical!

>World Economic Forum
I don't see why our elite and billionaires don''t just spend their money and keep it flowing in the economy.

>poor fags can't even jump a 10cm gap
they deserve to be poor and stay poor for the rest of their life desu

>The WEF also desperately push the automation meme because everyone sees the damage outsourcing has done
Pretty much. It should also be said that wealthy people tend to be on the wrong side of economic history with great regularity. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that neoliberal economy shills won't let their cancerous ideology die a quiet death. Futilely, they keep trying to breathe life back into it.

Wealth redistribution through taxation has literally never worked.

Those at the top will just arrange their finances in such a way that the taxation doesn't apply to them and instead you'll just widen the gulf between the super rich and upper middle class who can't access Swiss banks.

The only way to close the gap between the rich and poor is to uplift the poor by creating new industries and technologies. America's middle class was build by entrepreneurs who created magnificent inventions and needed to bring in millions of people to build up their industry and share slices of the new giant economic pie created by their innovations.

Taxation doesn't increase the size of the pie. At best it causes no change but in most cases reduces the overall size of the pie.

The super rich already have their slices locked away somewhere for safekeeping so increasign taxation just means taking from those who work hard being doctors, engineers, and business owners and giving to those who don't work as hard. This ruins incentives for both sides and creates a race to the bottom mentality.

What's the point of doing a decade of school to be a doctor and working 80+ hour weeks if your check is just getting siphoned off to pay for Janeequa's 3 kids cause she dropped out of high school, got knocked up by 3 different dudes who are all in jail? If you can't get ahead by working hard then why work at all?

Capitalism and Western Democracy are not synonymous. Billionaires limit economic growth. The absurdly wealthy are a burden on society. Making money off of money, without actually creating a thing, is an offense to human ingenuity.

>that pic
>higher taxes shown as closing the wealth gap
>when they literally force poor people under the poverty line and the richest people actually lobby for higher taxes because they'll just be exempt
>useful idiot liberals lobby for them and actually think they're doing good

The simple fact of the matter is that having access to money gives you more opportunities to incur risks and generate more revenue, while also making more avenues to jump through hoops to avoid taxation. Any system that ensures that people have a right to the fruits of their labor will inevitably end up with a gap between the rich and poor. That's just how it's always been.

People being rich doesn't affect the way I live my life, though, so why should I care?

>WaPo
fake news outlet

Because if they liquidated their billions in wealth by turning it into cash they would lose massive amounts of their wealth. Their net worth is tied up in assets that are difficult to liquidate. Better to collateralize it and use it to get leveraged debt that you can spend in the moment and pay down slowly(or not at all, no amortization).

You can explicitly target taxation in such a fashion that it can't be avoided.
A majority of "self-made" US billionaires made their billions in uncompetitive industries, more often than not rent-seeking. It's actively harmful to leave that situation as-is. There are then two options available: Nationalisation or taxation specifically targeted at one sector. I emphasise however this is only appropriate in uncompetitive sectors.

Not all tax is income tax. Doctors don't generally find themselves paying corporation taxes, unless the US tax system is even stupider than it seems at first glance.

>If you can't get ahead by working hard then why work at all?
Because living on foodstamps and workfare is shit and - if the able-bodied welfare system for men is anything like it is in the UK - actively forces you into work.
"You'll destroy incentive to succeed by making relatively minor tweaks to the tax system!" is a meme.


The most major thing however (which we'll never get) is multilateral capital controls. At present, the richest can move their wealth freely around the world ensuring they have no need for loyalty to any nation. If they were shackled by currency to one nation or another, their loyalty would be better enforced and you wouldn't have them actively sabotaging domestic industry.

Capitalism really is the worst economic model ever... except all the others that have been tried!

By financing other people's ventures they actually create quite a lot. They build sky scrapers, they fund startups, the help them grow. As long as the terms as fair and they invest in technologies that improve lives they do a lot of good.

The issue comes in when they start buying out politicians and placing bureaucrats that will erect barriers to competition and pass favorable legislation for themselves at the expense of others.

>The issue comes in when they start buying out politicians and placing bureaucrats that will erect barriers to competition and pass favorable legislation for themselves at the expense of others.
This is a natural phenomenon. Power is almost gravitational with how it seeks to consolidate. This is why neoliberal economics is doomed to failure.

...

Literally the opposite of true

High taxes do not bring the classes closer together

>Taxes fix wealth inequality
Objectively false, since federal taxes are all used to pay back the interest on the loan the Federal Reserve gives the government every year.

Taxes don't fix wealth inequality, period.

Every Leftist should have its skin peeled off with a knife. If we tortured you all to death with pliers and blowtorches we would have done nothing wrong.

>Because living on foodstamps and workfare is shit
Isn't the goal of raising taxes to make it less so? Otherwise why try and close that gap in the first place?

Corporate tax is the most retarded thing I can think of. Why would you tax the money before it gets paid out? That just lowers the ability of companies to grow and hire more employees or pay their workers better. You think the extra money getting paid in taxes is fmgonna come out of the shareholders pockets first? No. They'll make sure they get paid no matter what. Corporate tax just removes the leftover profit that could be invested in growth and paid out to the workers.

N O P E
O
P
E

Because the way the Banks have structured themselves within the economy is such that the large central bank which exists in every western country (and indeed also existed in the Soviet Union) profits off of higher tax rates of all varieties. The entire budgeting system is a scam and has been for a century.

Leftist retards who advocate higher taxes are essentially useful idiots for the snickering Rothschilds who collect their contributions to the Globalist .000001% retirement fund with glee. At least you're hurting people who make slightly more money than you, though, isn't that great?

True. This is why having less State power benefits the lower classes. State power is inevitably wielded by the super wealthy. By increasing taxes you are essentially giving them more money from the other classes to work with.

And the march toward global communism continues forward until all of civilization as we know it inevitably collapses

>Isn't the goal of raising taxes to make it less so?
Yes and no. It depends what you then spend the resulting revenue on. Invest it in infrastructure and you:
>Improve the quality of life for those on welfare, as their area gets less shit
>Improve the prospects for business, as infrastructure is better
>Create construction work.

>You think the extra money getting paid in taxes is fmgonna come out of the shareholders pockets first?
Don't worry, capital gains or a financial-transaction tax will handle them.

That's why ((Friedman)) Recommended a central bank + Inflation targeting + Low taxation, right?

Though as I appended at the end of my post: Capital controls are far more important than taxation, they're just not happening. It's not for nothing that Breton Woods saw a more stable financial system and higher growth. (Combined with higher marginal tax rates, albeit ones that were often avoided, and with less regressive taxes like GST/VAT.)

What are you talking about, wagecuckism is a religion of peace.

You're lumping a lot of things together to say that. The fact of the matter is that we actually need the government to create a rules-based approach to prevent mass market consolidation like we've seen under neoliberal economic policy. For example, as a statutory matter, a company merging with or acquiring another company which would consolidate more than 10% of the market for something would be automatically blocked by regulators. This way we wouldn't get the oligopolies we have now.

The point is, we need the government to create rules to enhance competition while being relatively 'fixed' so that regulators or lawmakers have less ability to grant special favors to companies.

Universal Basic Income when?

>(((World Economic Forum)))

Duh.

Relative inequality is an insanely strong indicator for violence and political instability. Even if a society, as a whole, is relatively rich. There is this myth on Sup Forums that total wealth can make up for relative inequality, this same board that likes to brag about how much richer they are than other people and thus gets more women, when relative inequality actually drives people on the bottom fucking neurotic.

Inequality is out of control and between automation and climate change I don't see any signs its gonna lose steam. People can blame globalisation all they want, and I certainly think some of the problems with it have been accelerated, but simply the enabling of globalisation with better transportation and communication was going to lead to problems like outsourcing eventually.

Both left-wing and right-wing systems are failing to address this. The right-wing structures allow wealth and power to multiply and entrench itself, the left-wing structures end up having any authority they establish get co-opted by the corrupt. Sup Forums is very redpilled about how the left has played a key role in the corrupt idea of cooperate welfare, and the increasing of entitlements, leading to debt skewing things in favor of the middle class/rich who deal with such debt, and fucking the poor which can't access it.

I don't actually see any obvious solution for it. I don't think trumponomics like eliminating the estate tax are really gonna do it.

I think the problem is probably deeper than the damn government, the culture doesn't really have an answer for how in a post-automation world the masses of people can be valuable, retain some semblence of equality to others, and be able to distinguish onesself and climb the social ladder, without creating some sort of easily corruptable structure. We're in a society which is purging roles from society more quickly than they are being added, and until we get a grasp of the adding part, there's gonna be chaos.

>There is this myth on Sup Forums that total wealth can make up for relative inequality
Ironic given that this ideology is essentially summed up in Clinton (both) and Blair.

One thing that must be understood about the left is that in the 90s (and in some cases, as in New Zealand, the 80s.) it basically completely folded to Friedmanite economics and started to fight a cultural war. Independent of your actual socialists, you've got people like Tony Blair who give you shit like this
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1372220.stm
>BLAIR: When you say where is the justice in that, the justice for me is concentrated on lifting incomes of those that don't have a decent income. It's not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money.

The bigger problem Sup Forums has is the failure to distinguish between the international wealthy and the domestic wealthy (perhaps because the USA acts as a hub-of-sorts for the world.), problems are amplified infinitely when people can rent-seek in American industry and then funnel the profits into China.

I object to
>simply the enabling of globalisation with better transportation and communication was going to lead to problems like outsourcing eventually
However. In the 1930s Keynes already articulated that this was not the case:
>Ideas, knowledge, science, hospitality, travel--these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national. Yet, at the same time, those who seek to disembarrass a country of its entanglements should be very slow and wary. It should not be a matter of tearing up roots but of slowly training a plant to grow in a different direction.
mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/keynes.htm

And in short that's the approach we really ought to take. The aim not being outright autarky, but certainly a greater measure of self-sufficiency.

isn't that what capitalism reform means? getting rid of crony capitalism that ruins proper capitalism that exists for the purpose of improving the quality of life of people?

I've thought about it before and desu the only solution I see is some type of National Socialist-esque system where people are willing to be collectivist because they see others as like them, and share at least somewhat in the products of machine labor while at the same time practicing some type of genetic engineering eugenics in order to raise average IQs to the point where most people can find productive employable work in a post-industrial society as artists, engineers, scientists, etc.